Skip to main content

China's Super Computer is an Intel/AMD Hybrid

Is it the Godzilla of the computer industry? That's what China is hoping with its latest and fastest supercomputer named Tianhe. At peak speed, this mechanical monster, housed at China's National University of Defense Technology in Changsha, can complete more than 1 quadrillion (one petaflop) calculations per second. For a current personal computer, the same calculations would take 160 years to complete.

Currently Tianhe's technical data has been submitted to the world's top-500 computing list for November's listing. Had Tianhe made its appearance earlier this year, it would have scored 4th on June's list, beating Shanghai's Magic Cube to take the top spot locally in China (Tianhe is five time's faster than the Shanghai supercomputer).

So what's inside this thing? According to Shanghai Daily, the one-petaflop beast cost organizations a meager $88 million to build (600 million Yuan). There are a total of 6,144 Intel CPUs and 5,120 AMD GPUs, and has enough storage to digitally contain all 27 million books in China's National Library four times over. However there are plans to implement local CPUs, either by adding to the existing Intel library or removing Intel altogether.

"As far as I know, the combination of CPUs and GPU is something new in making a petaflop computer," said Zhou Xingming, a CAS academician and a NUDT professor. "A GPU plays a role as an accelerator to make the computer run faster and also reduces its power consumption and cost. After it is installed in Tianjin, we plan to add hundreds or thousands of China-made CPUs to the machine and improve its performance."

  • cah027
    Wow.! I wonder how it compares to the number 1 supercomputer!
    Reply
  • ricdiculus
    But dose it play Crysis??
    Reply
  • bill gates is your daddy
    ricdiculusBut dose it play Crysis??
    you sir...are an asshat
    Reply
  • evolve60
    The title is extremely miss leading.

    ''There are a total of 6,144 Intel CPUs and 5,120 AMD GPUs''

    As much as I know, AMD does not make GPU's, ATI does AMD makes CPUs, even if their one company they still have their own distinct names and branding.
    Reply
  • stop... asking... that stupid... question. ragequit
    Reply
  • ktasley
    ATI+AMD one company, yes. ATI is AMD's. So is saying AMD's gpus really so bad?
    Reply
  • cybrcatter
    After it is installed in Tianjin, we plan to add hundreds or thousands of China-made CPUs to the machine and improve its performance
    China is dead serious about making every product they need within its own borders.What's crazier than the notion that they really want to have a completely self contained, non-dependent economy, is the fact that they have the manpower and resources to actually do it.
    Reply
  • Supertrek32
    cybrcatterChina is dead serious about making every product they need within its own borders.What's crazier than the notion that they really want to have a completely self contained, non-dependent economy, is the fact that they have the manpower and resources to actually do it.Most Americans have the same crazy notion, but are just too cheap for it to happen....
    Reply
  • superblahman123
    evolve60The title is extremely miss leading. ''There are a total of 6,144 Intel CPUs and 5,120 AMD GPUs''As much as I know, AMD does not make GPU's, ATI does AMD makes CPUs, even if their one company they still have their own distinct names and branding.
    AMD is technically the flagship name for the company, so this is only misleading to those that don't pay attention.

    It would be nice to know which kinds of Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs it is using, like knowing if every single one of them are Core i7 Extremes ;-D
    Reply
  • Trauma
    The fact that AMD & ATI are in bed together or owned by the same people has nothing to do with them being 1 company. In fact they are separate entities altogether. They are owned and operated by the same people but live and die separately. So yes, to answer your question it is bad. It's misleading and should be corrected.
    Reply